Site Mobile Navigation

Both Sides Claim Victory in Long Case of Failed Film

LOS ANGELES, May 15 — A knock-down, drag-out trial over the failed big-budget movie “Sahara” mercifully ended on Tuesday after three and a half months. But it had an unsatisfying Hollywood ending.

Neither side truly won.

A split decision reflected the debate among the legal set here, which had for weeks wondered who looked worse.

Was it Clive Cussler, 75, a best-selling author of pulpy adventure novels who complained that “Sahara” (2005), based on one of his novels, was a box-office bomb because he did not have final approval on the screenplay?

Or was it Philip Anschutz, a reclusive entertainment billionaire whose company produced “Sahara” and who fought the suit by arguing that he overpaid Mr. Cussler by millions because the writer had overstated his book sales?

The jury, in effect, sided with neither, ordering Mr. Cussler to pay $5 million to Mr. Anschutz’s company, Crusader Entertainment, for his misdeeds, while confirming that Crusader owed Mr. Cussler $8.5 million for the rights to a second novel, according to lawyers for both sides. As the decision made clear, the jury in Superior Court for Los Angeles County, which deliberated for nearly two weeks, had its hands full. But not with just the usual arcana.

“I’d say the ‘Sahara’ trial is more about Hollywood egos than law or money,” said Pierce O’Donnell, a leading lawyer in business and media-related cases.

The case may have been much ado about less than nothing — $105 million less than nothing. That is the sum of money that “Sahara,” with a $160 million budget and starring Matthew McConaughey and Penélope Cruz, has lost for its investors, principally Crusader Entertainment.

Along the way, jurors and the public have learned that Hollywood studios and best-selling authors sometimes exaggerate or lie.

“You heard the lies,” Marvin S. Putnam, the lead lawyer for Mr. Anschutz, said in his closing argument nearly two weeks ago. “What they really wanted was 10 million bucks per book, and they lied to do it.”

“They say he would only consider his own writing,” the lawyer said to the jury. “Hogwash. They claim he took back his approvals. More hogwash.”

Longtime entertainment lawyers said Cussler v. Anschutz was a garden-variety business dispute that was meant to be settled quietly in carpeted suites.

“It seems ridiculous to me,” said Linda Lichter, a leading Hollywood lawyer. “Does the whole case ride on whether this guy gave an accurate representation of what the book sales were? What producer enters into a deal based on what someone tells them about book sales?”

Alan Schwartz, another prominent entertainment lawyer, said the other side was grasping at straws.

“The whole idea is he’s saying he had final approval over the screenplay,” Mr. Schwartz said. “But most of us feel it’s not a very strong case. He took the stand, and he was not a very attractive witness.”

Questioned on the stand for seven days, Mr. Cussler contradicted himself and at times seem confused. He admitted that he had frequently referred to having sold a total of 100 million books, even though his literary agent had told him that the figure was inaccurate, but that he had forgot.

The lawyers marked their territory. Mr. Putnam, 42, of O’Melveny & Myers, was the upstart, arguing against Mr. Fields, 78, a legend who has represented a Who’s Who of Hollywood luminaries, including Tom Cruise and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Mr. Fields, who arrived every day at the courthouse in his chauffeured Bentley, is best known for aggressive negotiation rather than litigation.

For more than three years, he has been a subject of a lengthy federal investigation into his relationship with Anthony Pellicano, a jailed private investigator who is awaiting trail on charges of wiretapping and racketeering.

The lawyers were not the only people grandstanding. Early last month, Robert McKee, a screenwriting master, testified for Mr. Anschutz, giving his opinion of Mr. Cussler’s “Sahara” screenplay from 2002.

“How bad?” Mr. McKee asked. “I have thought of phrases like ‘seriously flawed,’ ‘fatally flawed.’ But it is beyond all of that, because when something is flawed there is an implication that something else about it is good.”

On cross-examination, Mr. Fields had Mr. McKee acknowledge that he found “Citizen Kane” to be heartless, emotionally empty and cold.

None of this added up to sympathetic arguments for either side, said people who watched the trial from afar.

In such cases, it is quite possible that both sides might lose, which seems to have occurred in this case.

The jury awarded Mr. Anschutz a sum to compensate for misstated book sales, even as it gave Mr. Cussler, who ended up ahead, an award because Crusader did not turn his second book in the adventure series into a film. Lawyers for each side declared victory, even as they said they would ask the judge to set aside the sums ordered by the jury.

“Average jurors are turned off about cases involving the rich cheating the rich,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “Often the outcome is a pox on both your bank accounts.”

A version of this article appears in print on , on page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Both Sides Claim Victory In Long Case of Failed Film. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe